Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday October 03 2016, @01:11AM   Printer-friendly
from the it-all-adds-up dept.

Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard about a story that appeared on CNN on September 9, 2016.

From targeted advertising and insurance to education and policing, Cathy O'Neil's new book 'Weapons of Math Destruction' [WMD] looks at how algorithms and big data are targeting the poor, reinforcing racism and amplifying inequality.

[...] In a vacuum, these models are bad enough, but O'Neil emphasizes, "they're feeding on each other." Education, job prospects, debt and incarceration are all connected, and the way big data is used makes them more inclined to stay that way.

"Poor people are more likely to have bad credit and live in high-crime neighborhoods, surrounded by other poor people," she writes. "Once ... WMDs digest that data, it showers them with subprime loans or for-profit schools. It sends more police to arrest them and when they're convicted it sentences them to longer terms."

In turn, a new set of WMDs uses this data to charge higher rates for mortgages, loans and insurance.

[...] "Big Data processes codify the past," O'Neil writes. "They do not invent the future. Doing that requires moral imagination, and that's something only humans can provide."

I'm not interested in the story. I'm interested in what it says about once proud CNN's current quality of journalism. Fox News: Left Division?

Source: http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/06/technology/weapons-of-math-destruction/


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Arik on Monday October 03 2016, @01:15AM

    by Arik (4543) on Monday October 03 2016, @01:15AM (#409209) Journal
    This is perpetuating inequality. I suppose it's 'racist' in that people of purported other 'race' are more likely to be at the bottom, and thus to stay at the bottom, and by a very large measure. But this is far from striking at the root. Lots of 'white' folks are poor too, and tend to stay poor as well. If you oppress all poor people, regardless of color, that's better described as being anti-poor than racist. Even if more of the poor tend to be black rather than white, that is (or should be) kind of an also-ran next to the main story here, no?
    --
    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 03 2016, @02:20AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 03 2016, @02:20AM (#409219)

    You're right, except that there are far more poor white people than poor black people! But it is true that a higher percentage of blacks are poor than whites.

    • (Score: 1, Troll) by mojo chan on Monday October 03 2016, @08:18AM

      by mojo chan (266) on Monday October 03 2016, @08:18AM (#409305)

      It's not about numbers, really. It's about there being issues that affect coloured people specifically. Issues that need specifically addressing.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 03 2016, @02:35AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 03 2016, @02:35AM (#409224)

    Yes, however it does write the narrative as a race issue instead of a class issue, and deflects attention from the perpetrators of the inequality.

    While control over your privacy is paramount, casting this as a race issue, which is mostly of interest to minorities, instead of a privacy issue, which is of interest to all, is just divisive at its core.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Arik on Monday October 03 2016, @03:37AM

      by Arik (4543) on Monday October 03 2016, @03:37AM (#409237) Journal
      "Yes, however it does write the narrative as a race issue instead of a class issue, and deflects attention from the perpetrators of the inequality."

      Working As Intended.

      "While control over your privacy is paramount, casting this as a race issue, which is mostly of interest to minorities, instead of a privacy issue, which is of interest to all, is just divisive at its core."

      Exactly. The American people must remain divided if they are to be properly plucked. Any strategem that turns them against each other, on class, race, or other lines, will be on the table. SJW or Stormfront doesn't really matter from one point of view - all that matters is creating polarization, one way or another.
      --
      If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
  • (Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Monday October 03 2016, @02:46AM

    by Zz9zZ (1348) on Monday October 03 2016, @02:46AM (#409225)

    I brought up the title of this submission as a humorous one-liner to a mathematician and he said that there is actually a strategy to equate inequality with racism. I pointed out that people may find it a but stupid, but I guess that is one way to tackle both problems... I'm a bit shocked that academia would put it forth like this, personally it just undermines the issues.

    --
    ~Tilting at windmills~
  • (Score: 2) by Entropy on Monday October 03 2016, @10:37PM

    by Entropy (4228) on Monday October 03 2016, @10:37PM (#409712)

    That's racist. When anything is wrong with black people--it's racist! Haven't you been reading the news. The fault is never their own. If something is wrong with any other race(like being bad at math) they just need to work on it.

  • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday October 05 2016, @02:47AM

    by urza9814 (3954) on Wednesday October 05 2016, @02:47AM (#410474) Journal

    Surprised nobody here has mentioned -- and everyone seems to be rushing to defend -- the one word that springs to my mind here: Aristocracy.

    That's what this really is. People who are at the top get to stay at the top. They get lower interest rates, they get easier credit, they get hired for jobs more readily. People at the bottom get screwed. Can't save up when you've got a crap job and massive interest rates on any credit. Can't move to a better neighborhood or get a better education or start a business because you can't get credit. And your starting credit score is so often based on your parents' -- if they're rich, you get credit for their payments, you get credit for their money, you get credit for their home. If they're poor, at best you start with nothing. And if you start with nothing, the algorithms decide you're too risky, so you stay at nothing.